2022: The Year of Vaccine Mandates?
Vaccine mandates are a violation of personal freedom.
Every few decades, human society is shaken by a new phenomenon that stirs up human consciousness, and people find themselves taking decisions about things that are like dinosaurs in a bakery: you don’t see them coming, know very little about them, but they are too big and risky to be ignored.
Anyone who woke up in 2022 would have to make one such decision (if they haven’t already made it): so do you take the jab?
I came, I saw, I took the jab.
This is pretty much how our governments expect us to treat COVID vaccines. Mechanically. Without putting any thought into it. Without asking questions. Without wondering what the actual f*ck it is. Just do it. Why? Because we told you so, and if you don’t you’re a public offender & you’re gonna get us all killed.
I started out 2021 with the post “2021: The Year of the Vaccine?” It’s only right that I should start out 2022 with “2022: The Year of Vaccine Mandates?” Within one year, more than thirty countries have made the COVID vaccine mandatory, and in several other countries, it is mandatory for healthcare workers or employees in certain companies & so on and so forth.
But that is not the only mandate we need to reckon with. Traveling to almost any country in the world requires a “vaccine passport.” Yes, proof of your identity, and a negative COVID test are not sufficient. You need to have the jab to be able to fly to anywhere. Some states/cities in certain countries have taken this measure one step further to ban the unvaccinated from public places like cafes, restaurants and such.
The vaccines are here, whether we like it or not—but wait; you don’t have the option of not liking them. What’s not to like?
Thou Shalt Not Talk Sh*t About the Vaccine
The problem with the vaccine mandates is not just the vaccine. It is how guarded and well-protected the “official” narrative around the vaccines is. You are not allowed to discuss it, question it, think about. If you do, you’re “anti-science” or “anti-national” or both, depending on which part of the world you’re in.
Whenever people are forced to accept a certain worldview on something, banning and suppressing discussion and debate on it, especially when that event directly affects their lives, there is usually something not right somewhere. If everything is kosher, why would people not be allowed to discuss and debate a “scientific” phenomenon? Labelling, boxing, mischaracterization of people—even those from the scientific community—as traitors, uneducated, selfish et al is at the heart of the Vaccine Mandate Problem.
I did not live through the holocaust or WW2. Was too young at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. But I have spent enough time reading and researching defining events of world history to see symptoms of mind control and totalitarianism in real life.
Last I checked, the only way to do science is to ask questions. I grew up asking questions about almost everything. That’s why I want on to study technology. Most science-lovers hero worship Feynman. He was, ofcourse, inimitable. So then why are we forgetting what Feynman says about learning about the world we live in?
“You’ll notice, in this example, that the more I ask why, the deeper a thing is, the more interesting it gets.”—Richard Feynman.
Prohibition of questioning and exploration falls in the realm of monotheist religions, not science. Delving deeper into questions is how you do science.
A Few Things About The Vaccines That Are Un-likable
In answer to the question “What’s not to like?”, I will posit a few points, taking the question literally.
Vaccines are Experimental
So one of the things nobody wants anybody to know is that almost all of the vaccines running in the bloodstream of perfectly jabbed, booster-ed up people are experimental, have received emergency approval, and have not followed normal protocols of vaccine approvals—which means, they have not been tested for risks and side effects as per protocols. Now I trust my science bros just as much as the next guy. But we all know that scientific experiments can sometimes go wrong, or may not go as we would like them to. People who actually try to do something scientific in their lives ideally should know this better than those who don’t. Yet, for some odd reason, neither are the vaccines properly checked for risks, nor does that bother anyone.
When was the last time some vaccine was ready even before the disease started to spread? Think about it. If this was the case for all contagious diseases in the world, we would be able to eliminate so many diseases completely! Imagine a world with no AIDS! The fact remains that the normal process for vaccine development takes 5-10 yrs.
Pfizer had the vaccine ready in March 2020. The rest of the time was taken up by the regulatory and approval process. The pandemic started to spread only in March 2020. Puzzled? You should be—especially since the Pfizer vaccine is new mRNA biotechnology. New tech, new possibilities, new risks. No?
A brief history of vaccine timelines may shed light on how COVID compares with other diseases. It’s a bit super-quick, tbh. Just something we need to think about.
Vaccine Jabs are Irreversible
Once you inject something in the human body, there is no known method to get it out of your system. This is something conveniently forgotten. Moreover, taking an injection is quite different from taking a pill, because the injection will go directly into your bloodstream, and from there to all organs, bypassing the gastrointestinal tract entirely. 100% of it will be absorbed into the body, rather than a smaller percentage of it, as is the case of a pill. This is why, if you are injected with something your body is going to resist, you see the effects much faster, and they are usually much worse.
Considering that it is irreversible, it should be normal reaction of people to know what is in the vaccine, and how it is going to affect your body in the long term. This should have been obvious since day one. But considering how few people seem to think this a valid argument, I am spelling it out here. The fact remains, that the long term effects of vaccines are not entirely known, and the short term effects are not encouraging. Scores of people around the world, with varying demography, have shown short term reactions to the vaccines including cardiac arrests, strokes, difficulty in breathing and death. You could argue flashing data in front of my eyes that these are “rare” cases, but why are they there at all? How can we be forced to take a jab for something which can and has caused serious medical health issues in the short term? And if the vaccines do not cause any side effects, why is no pharmaceutical company willing to give that to us in writing, making them liable to be sued in the event of a casualty? There is always the fine print, that nobody reads.
In the case of malpractice, if a doctor prescribes something that can cause a patient’s condition to deteriorate severely, the doctor can, typically, by sued. But no government nor pharmaceutical company can be sued for a reaction from an injection that is mandated for masses.
There is also the additional factor of suppression of news of side effects from the vaccines by mass media. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the vaccine, why should these stories be suppressed? Do we suppress news of terrorist attacks? Of famines? Of tsunamis? They all affect human beings in one way or another. They all make us cynical. They all hurt the world economy. Then why suppress news of adverse reactions to vaccines, instead of pressuring big pharma to fix the side effects?
18 countries banned the AstraZenca vax (sold and manufactured as Covishield in India) due to indications of complications with blood clots. Yet, masses do not know this, nor care about it. Media does not think it important enough for masses to know.
In India, vaccines are an object of evincing nationalism. So, irrespective of facts, you are expected to show your nationalism by taking the jab, even if it can trigger a stroke. With new “commandments” like the Haryana CM declaring public spaces will not allow unvaccinated people, this is bordering on a draconian policy. It is even more ridiculous, because the law-enforcement in India is in tatters, so it is hard to imagine how they will actually enforce such a law! But it gets worse. Even kids are not to be allowed in schools if they don’t take the jab. This is a gross violation of personal freedom. In the matter of children, parents should be allowed to decide what’s best for them, not the current Chief Minster of the state.
Vaccines Don’t Stop the Spread
It has been stated, time and again, by every authority there is, that the vaccines don’t stop the spread. It is the reason why even the vaxxed are asked to wear masks, are asked to submit negative COVID tests before boarding a flight or entering a different country/state/city (as the case may be).
They may reduce the chances of the spread, but no they do not stop it. So many counties in UK, and countries like Israel, are seeing rising case numbers in places where a huge percentage of the population is vaxxed. So what went wrong?
An interactive chart can be seen here.
The virus keeps mutating. Health professionals have declared that the current vaccines are not that effective against the new Omicron variant. So why must we keep taking the vaccine, worse, be mandated to keep taking the next booster shot, or else be considered “unvaxxed” without it?
Unvaxxed are not Lepers
The terms “anti-vaxx” and “unvaxxed” have now become pejoratives. So many people take the jab just because they don’t want to be mocked, ridiculed, or worse, discriminated against just for their “vaccine status.” Every time there is an outbreak or the next wave of COVID, the self-appointed COVID police starts taking pot shots at the “unvaxxed,” blaming them for the crisis, as if they alone are to be blamed, and not the agents that created the virus, or the governments suppressing people for it, violating civil liberties.
This interview of Glen Greenwald, explains this succinctly:
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
The Djokovic controversy exposed one of the dark aspects of our current society: that no matter how talented, smart or successful you are, the government can still take away your freedom, destroy your career, and treat you like a leper if you dare question their draconian policies or challenge their requirements to inject yourself with something you don’t agree with.
Let’s also take a moment to remember that Djokovic’s skepticism of the vaccines is not unwarranted. Several tennis players have dropped out of the Australian Open, reporting sudden cases of heart or breathing trouble, with absolutely no trigger to explain it—they were all fully vaxxed. Why is the media not highlighting this? Ask them, not me.
This interview of Glen Greenwald with the American tennis player Tennys Sandgren throws light on many aspects of the Djokovic controversy.
Novak Djokovic is, unfortunately, not the only tennis player being deported out of Australia. Czech player Renata Voracova’s visa has also been cancelled following the Djokovic visa cancellation. She had acquired a medical exemption due to complications after a COVID infection that prevented her from getting the jab, and also played in the warm-up Melbourne tournament earlier. But she was forced to strip during her interrogation and finally deported. She reports “feeling like a criminal.” This type of treatment of tennis players is not what we expect from “first world” countries. If any “third world” country asked a female tennis player to undress this way, the entire NATO and EU would be up in arms and international media would be splashing headlines on front pages. But there is not a whisper in the trending hashtags on social media. Are you asking “why?” yet?
“First World” Vaccine Supremacy
Most of the countries in the “first world” do not accept vaccines manufactured and patented in “third world” countries or countries that do not find leverage with the NATO. India’s Covaxin, Russia’s Sputnik V and many other Asian vaccines are currently not approved by European, American and other “first world” countries like Australia and NZ. So, even if you are vaxxed, you are not “privileged” enough to be considered vaxxed by these countries.
Does this not strike anyone as fishy? Many of these vaccines have emergency approval from WHO, much like the Pfizers, Modernas, J&Js of the world. So why this hegemony? Asian countries have all signed deals with the three big players: AstraZenca, Pfizer-BionTech and J&J for vaccinating their populations. This disincentivizes local invention, innovation and manufacture of vaccines. Japan faced severe flak for resisting the deal with Pfizer for some time, hoping to develop their own vaccine.
This brings us back to the question of “vaccine passports.” Even if you do, for a moment, agree with the concept of vaccine passports, the question remains: why should all WHO approved vaccines not be acceptable for the vaccine passport?
This is where all the “because science, bro” type of arguments fall apart. Why should people, governments evince MORE faith in NEW and riskier technologies, rather than in traditional or locally manufactured vaccines? Why should people not be allowed the choice of the vaccine? Not accepting traditional vaccines for vaccine passports amounts to making your “vaccination status” irrelevant if you do not use a “privileged” vaccine.
There is a lot more that I can say on the vaccines. The sum of all the arguments remains the same: people need to be treated as humans, with brains, with cognitive abilities, not sheep to be herded. Vaccine mandates violate personal freedom, irrespective of what spot on this beautiful planet you are on, and what the laws of your country are. Taking the vaccine is not some sort of ‘selfless act’ to protect others but it is something one must decide to take to protect their own selves, weighing their own medical history in the balance. Gaslighting and discrimination against those who choose their health and wellness, and the way they want to safeguard their health and wellness, is nothing short of violation of human rights.
Let people live. If it applies in matters of religion, then it should apply in matters of 'science’ as well, since science is just as multi-faceted—perhaps even more so—as religion: “to each his own.”